UV or skylight filters for digital

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:59:33 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
wrote:

In article , Graham Archer
wrote:

Hi,
I read somewhere that UV filters for digital SLR cameras are a waste of
time because they have very little affect.
( see " Why worry about UV " at : http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv )
The skylight is apparently a cheaper, and just as effective option for
digital lens protection.
Is this correct ?

I think they're a waste of time for any kind of camera.

....says the man who's never climbed a mountain.

...anyway, time? surely you mean money?

I bet you scrub the anti-UV coating off your lenses too eh?

--
Owamanga!

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:59:33 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
wrote:

In article , Graham Archer
wrote:

Hi,
I read somewhere that UV filters for digital SLR cameras are a waste of
time because they have very little affect.
( see " Why worry about UV " at : http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv )
The skylight is apparently a cheaper, and just as effective option for
digital lens protection.
Is this correct ?

I think they're a waste of time for any kind of camera.

....says the man who's never climbed a mountain.

...anyway, time? surely you mean money?

I bet you scrub the anti-UV coating off your lenses too eh?

--
Owamanga!

In article , Owamanga
wrote:

...says the man who's never climbed a mountain.

..anyway, time? surely you mean money?

I bet you scrub the anti-UV coating off your lenses too eh?

I don't believe them to be necessary for film or digital cameras.
Never used 'em in the old days and I don't use 'em now.

In article , Owamanga
wrote:

...says the man who's never climbed a mountain.

..anyway, time? surely you mean money?

I bet you scrub the anti-UV coating off your lenses too eh?

I don't believe them to be necessary for film or digital cameras.
Never used 'em in the old days and I don't use 'em now.

Graham Archer wrote:
Hi,
I read somewhere that UV filters for digital SLR cameras are a waste of
time because they have very little affect.
( see " Why worry about UV " at : http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv )
The skylight is apparently a cheaper, and just as effective option for
digital lens protection.
Is this correct ?
Regards
Graham

A couple of comments.

Most if not all digital cameras have built in UV filters. I was
surprised by this, but checked out the only digital I had at the time and
even though it made no mention of it, it indeed was blocking UV. I have not
bothered to check my new camera.

While there are some general trends, there is no agreed standards for UV
vs skylight etc. They don't all work exactly the same.

While there may be some value to using one (preferable the weakest one)
to "protect" your lens, there is also the increased glass surfaces and flair
possibilities. Personally I don't bother, but I guess if I were going
somewhere that I expected blowing sand, dust or water to be a problem, I
might buy one. Most of the time a lens shade will provide better lens
protection, increased protection of no optical interference.

The real damage to a lens from a chip or scratch is far less than most
people believe.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Graham Archer wrote:
Hi,
I read somewhere that UV filters for digital SLR cameras are a waste of
time because they have very little affect.
( see " Why worry about UV " at : http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv )
The skylight is apparently a cheaper, and just as effective option for
digital lens protection.
Is this correct ?
Regards
Graham

A couple of comments.

Most if not all digital cameras have built in UV filters. I was
surprised by this, but checked out the only digital I had at the time and
even though it made no mention of it, it indeed was blocking UV. I have not
bothered to check my new camera.

While there are some general trends, there is no agreed standards for UV
vs skylight etc. They don't all work exactly the same.

While there may be some value to using one (preferable the weakest one)
to "protect" your lens, there is also the increased glass surfaces and flair
possibilities. Personally I don't bother, but I guess if I were going
somewhere that I expected blowing sand, dust or water to be a problem, I
might buy one. Most of the time a lens shade will provide better lens
protection, increased protection of no optical interference.

The real damage to a lens from a chip or scratch is far less than most
people believe.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Just keeps dust, fingerprints and more (see other thread re rocks!) off your
front element. I'd rather replace that once a year than a lens... at 18mm
with the D70 kit 18-70 lens mine gives a bit of vignetting though, so keep
that in mind when using, and take it off if you're using another filter or
shooting into the sun.

Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

Just keeps dust, fingerprints and more (see other thread re rocks!) off your
front element. I'd rather replace that once a year than a lens... at 18mm
with the D70 kit 18-70 lens mine gives a bit of vignetting though, so keep
that in mind when using, and take it off if you're using another filter or
shooting into the sun.

Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

"Graham Archer" wrote in message
...
Hi,
I read somewhere that UV filters for digital SLR cameras are a waste of
time because they have very little affect.
( see " Why worry about UV " at : http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv )
The skylight is apparently a cheaper, and just as effective option for
digital lens protection.
Is this correct ?
Of course a skylight filter is as effective as a UV filter since a skylight
filter is really just another kind of UV filter.
The usual meaning of "skylight filter" is a Kodak type IA. It has a cutoff
wavelenght of about 400nm. In contrast, a Nikon L37C has a cutoff
wavelength of 370nm.
Jim

"Graham Archer" wrote in message
...
Hi,
I read somewhere that UV filters for digital SLR cameras are a waste of
time because they have very little affect.
( see " Why worry about UV " at : http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv )
The skylight is apparently a cheaper, and just as effective option for
digital lens protection.
Is this correct ?
Of course a skylight filter is as effective as a UV filter since a skylight
filter is really just another kind of UV filter.
The usual meaning of "skylight filter" is a Kodak type IA. It has a cutoff
wavelenght of about 400nm. In contrast, a Nikon L37C has a cutoff
wavelength of 370nm.
Jim